This AI-generated summary covers xGov Council meetings, which are unofficial and independently organized by the council. It offers a transparent view of their work and initiatives of xGov council to enhance the xGov program. These notes are provided as-is, and it’s understood that some topics may not be fully clear without prior context.
xGov Council & AF Meeting – (February 18th 2026) 
Attendees: xGov Council members & Algorand Foundation representatives
Overview
This meeting covered three main topics: the upcoming xGov Council election and what mechanism should replace the legacy general governance system, a discussion around the one-grant-per-account rule and how it applies to multi-human teams, and xGov’s funding sustainability in the context of the Algorand Foundation’s transition to a for-profit structure.
Discussions were intentionally exploratory throughout, with no formal decisions taken, but the council and Foundation aligned on several directions and flagged items requiring executive-level input.
Key Topics Discussed
1. Next xGov Council Election – Governance Mechanism
The Algorand Foundation presented a proposal to decommission the legacy general governance website, which is technically burdensome to maintain, and to instead run the next council election through the xGov system or a revised block-producer-based mechanism.
Key points discussed:
- The previous council election ran via general governance (period 15) without rewards, resulting in only ~77.8M ALGO participating from ~1,400 governors — a much lower turnout than typical governance periods
- Data was shared showing that approximately half of current xGov committee members (~97 out of ~200) had participated in governance period 15, representing ~31M of the 77M ALGO and roughly 18% of the 3M blocks produced — suggesting xGov’s representativity compares favourably to the legacy system
- Reti pools and xALGO were not included in governance period 15 due to time constraints; xGov already includes them, which is seen as an advantage for broader representation
- There was interest in moving toward block-producer-based voting rather than passive algo-holding as the underlying eligibility mechanism, framing it as forward-compatible with future protocol-level governance
- A variant was proposed that would remove the opt-in requirement, automatically enrolling all unique block proposers over a given period, reducing friction and increasing baseline participation
- Others noted that for more consequential decisions, opt-in prior to voting may still be preferable to ensure intentional participation and adequate quorum
- Concerns were raised that block-producer-only voting concentrates power in fewer, larger holders compared to the broader algo-holder base
- The importance of UX and predictability was emphasised — the previous system’s fixed monthly cadence made participation easy to plan for, and any new system would need to match or improve on that
- Technical reasons for the current opt-in design were noted: it enables deterministic on-chain state management (e.g. for delegation) and allows the Foundation’s own addresses to be excluded from xGov without relying on off-chain filtering
- The council agreed this is a political decision requiring sign-off from Foundation leadership, with the next election expected in Q3 as the immediate forcing function
2. Multiple Concurrent Proposals – One-Grant-Per-Account Rule
The current rule limiting each KYC account to one active grant at a time was revisited in the context of concurrent proposals submitted from the same team.
Key points discussed:
- The rule was introduced to prevent grant farming — submitting many proposals simultaneously to maximise the chance of at least one passing
- The original design intent was that milestones within a large project would be submitted sequentially as separate proposals, not in parallel
- The discussion distinguished two scenarios: (a) one KYC identity submitting multiple proposals, and (b) two separate KYC-verified individuals submitting proposals that are related or part of the same project
- It was clarified that the on-chain check applies per KYC account (physical person or legal entity), and that two distinct KYC identities submitting independently cannot be blocked by the system, even if they are collaborating
- It was noted that KYC is now only available to individuals, not legal entities — meaning a team or company can no longer register as a single proposer, which affects how the one-account rule applies in practice
- A suggestion was made to remove the single-grant restriction entirely and leave it to xGovs to assess whether a proposer is gaming the system, rather than placing investigative responsibility on the council or Foundation
- There was agreement that enforcing the rule as a meaningful anti-farming measure would require active effort from the Foundation, which is not currently realistic
- The council and Foundation acknowledged this is an unresolved policy question requiring a clear decision — either enforce consistently or remove — rather than ad hoc interpretation
3. xGov Funding Sustainability and the Foundation’s For-Profit Transition
The council raised concerns about the predictability and longevity of xGov funding, particularly given the Algorand Foundation’s structural transition to a for-profit model.
Key points discussed:
- The latest transparency report shows approximately 4M ALGO allocated to the xGov treasury. There is a verbal commitment from Foundation finance that the treasury will be topped up as needed, but no written commitment or fixed quantity
- The Foundation noted it evaluates the situation quarterly and aims to maintain a ~3M ALGO target, topping up if the balance drops below a critical threshold (~200–300k ALGO)
- Concern was expressed that with larger proposals potentially passing in a single cycle, the treasury could be significantly depleted quickly, forcing proposals to compete in a zero-sum way that undermines the credibility of the process
- The Chess.com-style node funding model proposed in a previous council meeting was reiterated: the Foundation allocates a defined amount of ALGO to a node, and the consensus rewards from that node flow directly into the xGov treasury on an ongoing basis
- The Foundation confirmed this idea has been raised internally and received interest, but acknowledged that legal, finance, and execution reviews are pending — no timeline was offered, partly due to delays caused by internal processes (US migration)
- A concern was raised that if the Foundation is funding the node rewards and those rewards then fund xGov, it is effectively the same pocket — this model only becomes meaningfully distinct when protocol-level fee revenue matures as an independent source
- Counter-arguments were made in favour of establishing the mechanism now regardless, as it creates a more predictable, vaulted commitment and begins building the habit of protocol-level sustainability
- An additional and notable dimension of this model was raised: the ALGO locked to the node on behalf of xGov could itself be enrolled as an xGov, with the resulting voting power delegated to the council. This would create a sizeable counterweight within the xGov voting system — effectively an institutionally-backed bloc that could help balance out the concentration of voting power currently held by large Folks Finance stakers, improving quorum reliability and reducing the outsized influence any single large holder can exert on proposal outcomes
- This was seen as a compelling secondary benefit of the node-locking model, beyond pure treasury sustainability — aligning funding mechanism design with governance health more broadly
Outcomes and Next Steps
No formal decisions were taken. However, the following themes were aligned on:
- Moving the next council election to xGov or a block-producer-based mechanism is the preferred direction, subject to executive sign-off from the Foundation
- The opt-in vs. no-opt-in question and UX/cadence design need further work before a final proposal is made
- The one-grant-per-KYC-account rule requires a clear policy decision — either enforced consistently or removed
- The Chess-style node funding model for xGov treasury sustainability is worth progressing, with the Foundation to provide updates as internal review proceeds
- Broader questions about xGov’s role within the Foundation’s for-profit structure were noted as important but deferred to a future agenda item
4. Council-Only Discussion (Post-Meeting)
Following the conclusion of the joint session, council members continued with a private discussion covering active proposals and the broader topics flagged earlier in the meeting — including xGov sustainability and the future direction of the program. This portion of the meeting was not recorded and no additional notes are available.